Comments on: Trust Us, We’re No Shady Dot Com! http://www.grokdotcom.com/2007/08/15/trust-us-were-no-shady-dot-com/ Marketing blog focused on marketing optimization, improving website conversion rates, search engine marketing, web analytics, word of mouth, etc. Sat, 21 Nov 2009 23:38:51 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: led http://www.grokdotcom.com/2007/08/15/trust-us-were-no-shady-dot-com/comment-page-1/#comment-1059226 led Fri, 26 Sep 2008 08:50:59 +0000 http://www.grokdotcom.com/2007/08/15/trust-us-were-no-shady-dot-com/#comment-1059226 it is my personal opinion that a dot org must stay a dot org. It should be completeley reserved for official non-profit organizations. Infact this was why this name was intended to be it is my personal opinion that a dot org must stay a dot org. It should be completeley reserved for official non-profit organizations. Infact this was why this name was intended to be

]]> By: Jeffrey Eisenberg http://www.grokdotcom.com/2007/08/15/trust-us-were-no-shady-dot-com/comment-page-1/#comment-177845 Jeffrey Eisenberg Thu, 06 Sep 2007 14:02:54 +0000 http://www.grokdotcom.com/2007/08/15/trust-us-were-no-shady-dot-com/#comment-177845 Alexa - Thank you for the information. Alexa – Thank you for the information.

]]> By: Alexa Raad http://www.grokdotcom.com/2007/08/15/trust-us-were-no-shady-dot-com/comment-page-1/#comment-177812 Alexa Raad Thu, 06 Sep 2007 13:35:45 +0000 http://www.grokdotcom.com/2007/08/15/trust-us-were-no-shady-dot-com/#comment-177812 As the new CEO of the .org registry, I was thrilled first to see the NY times story about the TIAA-CREF campaign. I have also followed the discussions about this campaign. I am not in the advertising industry, so I cannot adequately comment on the merits of the site design or colors. Nor do I work for or have any connections to TIAA-CREF, so I can not represent their views. What I can comment on is .org which is squarely in my domain; pardon the pun. So let’s address some of the issues folks have speculated on. One that has come up on various discussions is the question” can anyone get a .org name?” and the answer is yes, it is an unrestricted, so anyone can purchase a .org domain. However The TIAA-CREF campaign stresses one fact which we at the .org registry have known for quite some time; .org is seen as a trusted address. We have known this since 2004 based on quantitative customer research we conducted. As a result of the research we championed an educational campaign (www.protectyour.org) to let legitimate .org domain holders know how to protect their .org domains from opportunists who would other wise snap up the domain and use it in way contrary to the original intent. But the question is why does the public have this positive perception and is it well founded? For that, you would have to know a bit about the company (see www.pir.org) As the custodians of .org we are a non-profit driven by principles that strive to keep .org a trusted domain and the Internet a vibrant, growing and open space. How? 1) We have raised awareness of practices which in harming the interests of legitimate organizations mislead the market they serve. http://www.icann.org/correspondence/viltz-to-crocker-26mar06.pdf 2) We are active in a number of organizations such as, CFP (Computers, Freedom and Privacy), EPIC (Electronic Privacy Information Center), CTCNet (Community Technology Centers' Network), and the Anti-Phishing Working Group (http://www.antiphishing.org/) where we advocate policies for the protection of privacy of personal data and greater awareness in the noncommercial community of the communications power of the Internet. 3) We have implemented policies (see http://www.icann.org/minutes/resolutions-22nov06.htm) that aim to raise economic barriers for those who wish to engage in practices which often lead to mis-use of the .org domain name and hence erode public trust. How many spam or phishing messages do you get that originate from a .org address? Not many, I would say. So we have and we will continue to protect this domain space and hence earn the respect and trust that internet users have so far accorded a .org address. I applaud TIAA-CREF’s campaign as it shows that large well known organizations are able to build upon brand equity based on the value inherent in a .org address. As I said I am not qualified to comment on any creative aspects of the campaign, but they are on solid ground when they emphasize the value of their .org name as a stable and trusted address. As the new CEO of the .org registry, I was thrilled first to see the NY times story about the TIAA-CREF campaign. I have also followed the discussions about this campaign. I am not in the advertising industry, so I cannot adequately comment on the merits of the site design or colors. Nor do I work for or have any connections to TIAA-CREF, so I can not represent their views. What I can comment on is .org which is squarely in my domain; pardon the pun.

So let’s address some of the issues folks have speculated on. One that has come up on various discussions is the question” can anyone get a .org name?” and the answer is yes, it is an unrestricted, so anyone can purchase a .org domain. However The TIAA-CREF campaign stresses one fact which we at the .org registry have known for quite some time; .org is seen as a trusted address. We have known this since 2004 based on quantitative customer research we conducted. As a result of the research we championed an educational campaign (www.protectyour.org) to let legitimate .org domain holders know how to protect their .org domains from opportunists who would other wise snap up the domain and use it in way contrary to the original intent. But the question is why does the public have this positive perception and is it well founded? For that, you would have to know a bit about the company (see http://www.pir.org)

As the custodians of .org we are a non-profit driven by principles that strive to keep .org a trusted domain and the Internet a vibrant, growing and open space. How?

1) We have raised awareness of practices which in harming the interests of legitimate organizations mislead the market they serve. http://www.icann.org/correspondence/viltz-to-crocker-26mar06.pdf

2) We are active in a number of organizations such as, CFP (Computers, Freedom and Privacy), EPIC (Electronic Privacy Information Center), CTCNet (Community Technology Centers’ Network), and the Anti-Phishing Working Group (http://www.antiphishing.org/) where we advocate policies for the protection of privacy of personal data and greater awareness in the noncommercial community of the communications power of the Internet.

3) We have implemented policies (see http://www.icann.org/minutes/resolutions-22nov06.htm) that aim to raise economic barriers for those who wish to engage in practices which often lead to mis-use of the .org domain name and hence erode public trust.

How many spam or phishing messages do you get that originate from a .org address? Not many, I would say. So we have and we will continue to protect this domain space and hence earn the respect and trust that internet users have so far accorded a .org address. I applaud TIAA-CREF’s campaign as it shows that large well known organizations are able to build upon brand equity based on the value inherent in a .org address. As I said I am not qualified to comment on any creative aspects of the campaign, but they are on solid ground when they emphasize the value of their .org name as a stable and trusted address.

]]> By: Janet Beatrice http://www.grokdotcom.com/2007/08/15/trust-us-were-no-shady-dot-com/comment-page-1/#comment-152933 Janet Beatrice Mon, 20 Aug 2007 15:50:03 +0000 http://www.grokdotcom.com/2007/08/15/trust-us-were-no-shady-dot-com/#comment-152933 I just looked at the site - the copy is awful! Did they pay Modernista for that copy? They could've done better themselves. The idea of a non-profit being more trustworthy is a good one, but it just doesn't come across at all. Janet I just looked at the site – the copy is awful! Did they pay Modernista for that copy? They could’ve done better themselves.

The idea of a non-profit being more trustworthy is a good one, but it just doesn’t come across at all.

Janet

]]> By: Janet Beatrice http://www.grokdotcom.com/2007/08/15/trust-us-were-no-shady-dot-com/comment-page-1/#comment-152924 Janet Beatrice Mon, 20 Aug 2007 15:43:49 +0000 http://www.grokdotcom.com/2007/08/15/trust-us-were-no-shady-dot-com/#comment-152924 Can't anyone get a dot org site? Many years ago, I thought only non-profits could get dot org extensions, but - come to think of it, I believe I actually bought www.marketwithspirit.org so that I wouldn't have any confusion if someone else bought that domain name (my site is www.marketwithspirit.com, and come to think of it, I really ought to get the .org and .net versions on there!). So I think their ads are misleading, and that makes me trust them less. Janet Can’t anyone get a dot org site? Many years ago, I thought only non-profits could get dot org extensions, but – come to think of it, I believe I actually bought http://www.marketwithspirit.org so that I wouldn’t have any confusion if someone else bought that domain name (my site is http://www.marketwithspirit.com, and come to think of it, I really ought to get the .org and .net versions on there!).

So I think their ads are misleading, and that makes me trust them less.

Janet

]]> By: Brian Carter http://www.grokdotcom.com/2007/08/15/trust-us-were-no-shady-dot-com/comment-page-1/#comment-147502 Brian Carter Wed, 15 Aug 2007 17:48:52 +0000 http://www.grokdotcom.com/2007/08/15/trust-us-were-no-shady-dot-com/#comment-147502 I'm not certain they're right that the public perception of what dot-org means is strong enough to base a campaign on. It's always hard for experts to know what common knowledge is about their subject- I wonder if they surveyed customers to find that out. My biggest website ever was dot-org, and was not truly a non-profit... yes, it was started with public serving motives, but I don't know that the dot-org itself conveyed that. I think it was the brand and the relationship I built with readers. Plus, talking about any top level domain just seems nerdy. I've learned that talking nerd-speak doesn't work to well with anyone other than, well... nerds! I’m not certain they’re right that the public perception of what dot-org means is strong enough to base a campaign on. It’s always hard for experts to know what common knowledge is about their subject- I wonder if they surveyed customers to find that out.

My biggest website ever was dot-org, and was not truly a non-profit… yes, it was started with public serving motives, but I don’t know that the dot-org itself conveyed that. I think it was the brand and the relationship I built with readers.

Plus, talking about any top level domain just seems nerdy. I’ve learned that talking nerd-speak doesn’t work to well with anyone other than, well… nerds!

]]>